Stylos is the blog of Jeff Riddle, a Reformed Baptist Pastor in North Garden, Virginia. The title "Stylos" is the Greek word for pillar. In 1 Timothy 3:15 Paul urges his readers to consider "how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar (stylos) and ground of the truth."

Tuesday, July 31, 2012

The textual question in Luke 2:33 is whether the verse should
read “his father and mother [ho pater
autou kai he meter]” (modern critical text) or “Joseph and his mother [Ioseph kai he meter autou]” (traditional
text).The primary issue, then, is
whether or not the text makes use of the noun “father [pater]” or the personal noun “Joseph [Ioseph].”

This distinction is reflected in modern English translations:

Translations
based on the traditional text (emphasis added):

KJV:And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were
spoken of him.

NKJV:And Joseph and His mother marveled at those things which were
spoken of Him.

Translations based on the
modern-critical text (emphasis added)

NIV:The child's father and mother marveled at what was said about
him.

ESV:And his father and his mother marveled at what was said about
him.

External Evidence:

The traditional text is supported by codices A, Theta,
Psi, family 13, 33, and the vast majority of Greek manuscripts.It is also supported by several ancient
versions such as the Old Latin and the Gothic.Metzger also notes that this is the reading of Tatian’s Diatesseron (c. 2nd century)
(Textual Commentary, p. 134).

The modern critical text is supported by Sinaiticus and
Vaticanus, in addition to a few other codices.It is also supported by several ancient versions, including a few
Vulgate manuscripts.

Internal
Evidence:

Metzger explains the conventional thinking of modern text
critics that “father” was replaced by “Joseph” “in order to safeguard the
doctrine of the virgin birth of Jesus.”He also concedes that this must have occurred, given the textual
evidence, at a very early stage in the transmission of the text.At the least, under this construal, this
would indicate that the doctrine of the virginal conception was an ancient
doctrine and not a later church development.

Metzger does not address alternative explanations.Could another explanation be that the
original reading of “Joseph” was altered to “father” in order to downplay or
subvert the doctrine of the virginal conception?Could this reflect Christological
controversies in post-apostolic Christianity?

This tension is also reflected elsewhere in the text of
Luke 2.Metzger notes that in Luke 2:41
the phrase “his parents [hoi goneis autou]”
(the reading of both the traditional and modern critical text )is altered “by a
few copyists and translators” to read “Joseph and Mary” “in the interest of
safeguarding the doctrine of the virgin birth” (p. 135).More controversial is the reading of Luke
2:43 where the divide is similar to that found in v. 33, as the traditional
text reads “Joseph and his mother” (supported by A, C, Psi etc.), while the
modern critical text reads “his parents” (supported by Sinaiticus, Vaticanus,
etc.).

Conclusion:

Support for the traditional reading is ancient and diverse.Furthermore, it subtly supports the doctrine of
the virginal conception of Jesus.It is
interesting that modern criticism sees this as undermining rather than
authenticating the traditional text.When one considers the anti-supernaturalist bias, not to mention the
Arian bias, reflected particularly in German historical-critical methodology of
the 19th century, he should not be surprised to find that the modern
critical text arising in that same era would prefer the readings of Sinaiticus
and Vaticanus in Luke 2:33, 43 over the readings of the traditional text.The Reformers were, no doubt, also aware of
these variations but preferred the traditional reading as that preserved and
authentic.With them, we prefer to
maintain the traditional reading.

Thursday, July 26, 2012

We enjoyed having Dr. W. Gary Crampton speak
last Spring at CRBC and welcome him back this Sunday morning to preach again in
our 10:30 am service.Dr. Crampton has
served as a pastor and scholar and is a prolific writer.One part of his writing ministry includes
frequent contributions to The Trinity
Review. For a sampling of some more recent Trinity Review articles by Dr. Crampton check out these links:

CRBC hosted our annual "Puritan" Vacation Bible School this week from Monday through Wednesday evening. We call it a "Puritan" VBS, because we don't buy a pre-fab plan out of a box but simply use the Bible to teach age-integrated lessons from a portion of Scripture, along with Scripture memory songs, crafts, snacks, and recreation. You might also call it a "Regulative Principle" VBS. The focus of this year's study was the Life of Moses. Here are a few scenes:

Image: I had the privilege of doing the teaching sessions on the Life of Moses.

Image: There was lots of music and singing. Among the favorite Scripture songs of the week: The fruit of the Spirit (Gal 5:22-23); Beloved, let us love one another (1 John 4:7-8); and Be bold! Be strong! (Joshua 1:9).

Image: Casey H. oversaw great theme-related snacks each evening.

Image: Stephanie O. used her art teacher background to lead craft time.

Images: One night's craft included making a tablet with the ten commandments.

Images: Llew and Hannah R. led the ever-popular recreation time with outdoor games like "sharks and minnows" and indoor games like "Pass the hula hoop."

Wednesday, July 25, 2012

The textual issue in this well-known “Christmas” passage is
reflected in the renderings of various English translations.Whereas translations based on the traditional
text read:“Glory to God in the highest,
and on earth peace, goodwill toward
men” (AV, emphasis added), those based on modern texts read, “Glory to
God in the highest and on earth peace to
those on whom his favor rests” (NIV, emphasis added).

In Greek, the issue is the matter of the case of a single
word, eudokia.Should it be a nominative eudokia:“goodwill toward men” [en anthropais eudokia] or genitive eudokias:“among
men of goodwill” [en anthropais eudokias]?

Is the angelic announcement threefold (glory, peace, and
goodwill) or twofold (glory and peace) with the expanded emphasis on his peace
bestowed among those “on whom his favor rests” (NIV) or “among men with whom He
is pleased” (NASB)?

External evidence:

The traditional
reading of eudokia is supported by L,
Theta, Psi, family 1, family 13, and the vast majority of manuscripts.It is also supported by the Syriac and Bohairic
versions, as well as by the Church Fathers Eusebius and Epiphanius of
Constantia.

The modern critical reading of eudokias is supported by the original hands of Sinaiticus and
Vaticanus, as well as codices A, D, W, and a few Latin manuscripts.Among the Church Fathers it is found in some
texts from Origen and in Cyril of Jerusalem.

Internal evidence:

Metzger (see Textual
Commentary, p. 133) asserts that the genitive is “the more difficult
reading” and notes its support by “the oldest representatives of the
Alexandrian and the Western groups of witnesses.”Here we see the typical scholarly weight
given to Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.He
further explains that the nominative reading “can be explained either as an amelioration
of the sense or as a paleographical oversight.”Metzger notes that the difference between the nominative (eudokia) and the genitive (eudokias) is distinguished “only by the
presence of the smallest possible lunar sigma, little more than a point.”

Metzger seems also to defend against the charge that the
modern critical reading makes for a more man-centered translation:“The meaning seems to be, not that divine
peace can be bestowed only where human will is already present, but that at the
birth of the Saviour God’s peace rests on those whom he has chosen in accord
with his good pleasure.”

In his commentary on Luke 2:14, F. Godet offers a contrasting
view to Metzger (p. 82).He asserts that
the genitive reading “is hardly natural.”He adds that the term eudokia “does
not suit the relation of man to God, but only that of God to man.”Thus, he concludes, “this use of the genitive
is singularly rude, and almost barbarous.”It is “a mode of expression without any example” (but contrast Metzger’s
appeal to supposed parallel Hebraic expressions in the Dead Sea Scrolls).Godet concludes:“We are thus brought back to the reading of
the T. R., present also in 14 [mss.], among whom are L and Z, which agree
generally with the Alex., the Coptic translation, of which the same may be
said, and the Peschito.”

Godet notes, in particular, that the traditional reading
results in a more symmetrical and parallel rendering of v. 14 consisting of “three
propositions, of which two are parallel, and the third forms a link between the
two.”Of course, for Metzger, the more
sonorous rendering of the traditional text makes it suspect and the more asymmetrical
alternative preferable, because the latter is supposedly “the more difficult reading.”The modern text provides two propositions with
the final phrase an extended explanation of the type of men (i.e., those of
goodwill) who are the recipients of God’s peace.

Analysis:

The traditional reading has early, strong, and widespread support.As Metzger notes, the difference in
renderings is the matter of a single sigma.This final letter might just have easily been
added (whether intentionally or unintentionally) as omitted.The main difficulty with the modern text is
the shift in theological emphasis. Metzger’s defense aside, the modern
rendering does appear subtly to shift the emphasis away from a God-centered to
a man-centered focus, from God’s unconditioned bestowal of his goodwill among
men to his bestowal of his peace upon men “of goodwill.”The traditional reading is, therefore, to be
preferred.

Monday, July 23, 2012

Note: The article below appeared as the Paradosis column in the last issue of the RBT. Note Keach's references to Owen as an authority as evidence of the respect he enjoyed and influenced he exercised among early Particular Baptists.

Benjamin Keach was a Puritan
Particular Baptist pastor who lived from 1640-1704.He is the namesake for the annual Keach
Conference.The slightly edited extract below is
taken from The Glory of a True Church and
its Discipline Displayed (1697), one of Keach’s many works addressing
ecclesiology and ministry.

Eight Duties of Church Members to Pastors

By Benjamin Keach

Of the duty of church
members to their Pastor

1.It is the duty of every member to
pray for his Pastor and Teachers.

“Brethren pray for us” (1 Thess 5:25; Heb 13:18) that the
Word of the Lord may run and be glorified.Again, saith Paul, “praying also for us that God would open unto us a
door of utterance to speak the mystery of Christ” (Col 4:3).Prayer was made without ceasing of the church
unto God for him.Those that neglect
this duty seem not to care either for their Minister, or their own souls, or
whether sinners be converted, or the church edified or not. They pray for their
daily bread, and will they not pray to have the Bread of Life plentifully
broken to them?

Motives to this:

(a)The
Minister’s work is great:“Who is
sufficient for these things?” (2 Cor 2:16).

(b)The opposition is not small which is made
against them (see 1 Cor 16:9).

(c)God’s
loud call (as well as Minister’s themselves) is for the saints’ continual
prayers and supplications for them.

(d)Their
weaknesses and temptations are many.

(e)The
increase and edification of the church depends on the success of their
ministry.

(f)If
they fall or miscarry, God is greatly dishonored, and his ways and people
reproached.

2.They ought to show a reverential
estimation of them, being Christ’s ambassadors, also called Rulers, Angels,
etc.

They that honor and receive them, honor and receive Jesus
Christ.“Esteem them very highly in love
for their work’s sake” (1 Thess 5:13).Again, he saith, “Let the elders that rule well, be accounted worthy of
double honor, especially they who labor in word and doctrine” (1 Tim
5:17).That is, as I conceive, those
that are most laborious.

3.It is their duty to submit
themselves unto them, that is, in all their exhortations, good counsels, and
reproofs.

When they call to anyextraordinary duty such as prayer, fasting, or days of thanksgiving, if
they see no just cause why such days should not be kept, they ought to obey
their Pastor or Elder, as in other cases also.“Obey them that have the rule over you and submit yourselves” (Heb
13:7).

4.It is their duty to take care to
vindicate them from the unjust charges of evil men, or tongue of infamy, and
not to take up a reproach against them by report, nor to grieve their spirits,
or to weaken their hands (Jer 20:10; Zeph 2:8; 2 Cor 11:21, 23).

5.It is the duty of members to go to
them when under trouble or temptations.

6.It is their duty to provide a comfortable maintenance for them and their
families, suitable to their state and condition.

“Let him that is taught in the word communicate to him that
teacheth in all good things” (Gal 6:6).“Who goeth a warfare at his own charge? Who planteth a vineyard, and
eateth not of the fruit thereof?.... (1 Cor 9:7).“Even so hath the Lord ordained that they
which preach the gospel should live of the gospel” (v. 14).“If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap
your carnal things?” (v. 11).They
should minister to them cheerfully, with all readiness of mind.Ministers are not to ask for their bread, but
to receive it honorably (Matt 10:9-10).Though the Minister’s maintenance is not by tithes, etc., as under the
law, yet they have now as just a right to a comfortable maintenance as they had
then.The equity of the duty is the
same.Our Savior, saith Dr. Owen, pleads
it from the grounds of equity and justice.All kind of rules and laws of righteousness among men of all sorts calls
for it.

7.It is their duty to adhere to them
and abide by them in all their trials and persecutions for the Word.

“Ye were not ashamed of me in my bonds…” (cf. 2 Tim 1:16-18).

8.Dr. Owen adds another duty of the
members to their Pastor, viz., to agree to come together upon his appointment.

“When they were come, and had gathered the church together…”
(Acts 14:27).Ω

Friday, July 20, 2012

I sent out the April-May-June edition of The Reformed Baptist Trumpet (Vol. 3, No. 2) yesterday.The pdf of this issue has also been posted to
the RBF-VA website.Here’s the note we
sent with our email to those on our list:

Dear friends,

Attached is the
April-May-June issue of “The Reformed Baptist Trumpet,” the quarterly e-journal
of the Reformed Baptist Fellowship of Virginia.

Thursday, July 19, 2012

This week I ran across an
online article from the Washington Post
(7/10/12) on plans to construct a large-scale Bible Museum in our nation’s
capitol within the next four years.The
museum project is being funded by a wealthy philanthropist and will draw from a
collection of over 40, 000 Bible related artifacts.It sounded like an interesting project, and I
plan to make a pilgrimage to visit when it opens.

Beyond the article, however, I was
also intrigued by the hostile comments that were posted in response.Here are a few of the various comments:

I
thought that institutions that had books containing fiction were called
Libraries rather than museums.

Maybe we can create a museum for
the Collected Works of the Grimm Brothers as well?

The
Bible should be reclassified in the Dewey Decimal system from 220 to 753 (mythology)
or to 813 (fiction).

Religion
has always been the enemy of culture, the enemy of the human intellect, and the
enemy of progress. The Bible certainly belongs in a museum, as do the
neanderthals who continue to build their lives around it.

How
wonderful...just where all those Bibles belong...in a museum right alongside
all the other relics of mythology.

It
is striking how some in our increasingly secular society are not content merely
to be indifferent to Scripture but feel compelled vocally and vociferously to
oppose and disparage it.Paul’s
insightful analysis of men in their unregenerate state who “hold the truth in
unrighteousness” (Romans 1:18 AV; NKJV:“suppressing the truth in unrighteousness”) still rings true.

May
we who live in such a time as this be emboldened to admire and uphold the
Scriptures even more boldly.

Grace and peace, Pastor Jeff
Riddle

Note:One opportunity we have to study and teach
the Bible comes next week with our third annual “Puritan” Vacation Bible school
for youth and children.Pray for this
outreach and ministry as we meet Monday-Wednesday (July 23-25) from 6:00-8:00
pm.

Wednesday, July 18, 2012

David Silversides has a good ministry of addressing various contemporary issues in the midweek meetings of his church. His message on Social Networking: Blessing or Curse? was recently featured on sermonaudio.com and is worth a listen.

Tuesday, July 17, 2012

Note: The afternoon sermon last Sunday at CRBC was a meditation on Question 23 in our Spurgeon Catechism Series on Jesus our Prophet. I closed with a summary of Thomas Watson's applicatory "usages" from this question:

After Thomas Watson addresses this catechism question in A Body of Divinity, his study of the
Westminster Shorter Catechism, he offers three practical usages or applications
on Christ as our Prophet:

1.It is useful for information. That is tells us more about Christ, “who is
the great doctor of his church.”

2.It tells us that we are to labor to have Christ as our teacher.

“A man can no more by the power of nature reach Christ, than
an infant can reach the top of the pyramids, or the ostrich fly up to the
stars.”

“Knowledge is in Christ for us as milk in the breast for the
child.Oh then go to Christ for
teaching.None in the gospel came to
Christ for sight, but he restored their eyesight; and sure Christ is more
willing to work a cure upon a blind soul than ever he was to do so upon a blind
body.”

Christ can take the dullest man and make him “a good scholar’
so that “they know more than the great sages and wisemen of the world.”

Watson also points out that Christ does this through his
appointed means.“Ministers are earthen
vessels, but these pitchers have lamps within them to light souls to heaven.
Christ is said to speak to us from heaven now, by his ministers, as the king
speaks by his ambassador.”

3.It tells us to be thankful:“If you have been taught by Christ savingly,
be thankful.”

Watson draws on an ancient analogy. He says if Alexander the
Great expressed thanks that Aristotle had been his teacher, then, “how are we
obliged to Jesus Christ, this great Prophet, for opening to us the eternal
purposes of his love, and revealing to us the mysteries of the kingdom of
heaven!”

Monday, July 16, 2012

“And Mary kept [syntereo, to protect, to keep safe, to preserve, to keep in good
condition, to treasure] all these things, and pondered them in her heart” (Luke
2:19).

I preached Sunday morning in our Luke series on Luke
2:8-20.I was struck by Frederick Godet’s
comments on Luke 2:19.He argues for v.
19 as giving evidence that Luke used an oral recollection of Mary of the birth
of Jesus as a source for his narrative of Jesus’ birth(cf. 1:1-4).Here are his observations:

The Aramaean coloring of the
narrative indicates an ancient source.The oftener we read the nineteenth verse, the
more assured we are that Mary was the first and real author of this whole
narrative.This pure, simple, and
private history was composed by her, and preserved for a certain time in an
oral form until someone committed it to writing, whose work fell into the hands
of Luke, and was reproduced by him in Greek (p. 84).

Saturday, July 14, 2012

On the first day we met to begin our summer men’s Bible Study,
reading together Spurgeon’s The Soul
Winner, we ran into an interesting textual issue.One of the brothers had an edition of
Spurgeon’s book from Whitaker House (WH), while I had read the first chapter on my
phone online from spurgeon.org.When my
friend read the opening paragraph from his edition, I noted some differences. The WH edition begins as follows:

I purpose, dear ones, if God will enable me, to give you a short course
under the general head of "The Soulwinner." Soulwinning is the chief
business of the Christian; indeed, it should be the main pursuit of every true believer.
We should each say with Simon Peter, "I go fishing” (John 21:3), and our
aim should be, along with Paul, "That I might by all means save some” (1
Corinthians 9:22).We will begin our
messages on this subject by considering the question:What is it to win a soul?

While my version read:

I purpose, dear brethren, if God shall enable me, to give you a
short course of lectures under the general head of "THE SOUL-WINNER."
Soulwinning is the chief business of the Christian minister; indeed, it should
be the main pursuit of every true believer. We should each say with Simon
Peter, "I go a fishing," and with Paul our aim should be, "That
I might by all means save some."We shall commence our
discourses upon this subject by considering the question— WHAT IS IT TO WIN A
SOUL?

When we examined the WH edition we noted the
brief “publisher’s note” in the book’s front matter which read, “This new
edition from Whitaker House has been edited for the modern reader.Words, expressions, and sentence structure
have been updated for clarity and readability.”

The line that struck me by its difference was the one in WH that
reads, “Soulwinning is the chief business of the Christian…,” versus the
original which reads, “Soulwinning is the chief business of the Christian
Minister….”The original reflects Spurgeon’s
high view of office and the preaching duty of the Minister, though the
continuation of the line clearly shows that Spurgeon also saw evangelism as a
duty for all believers.The WH edition
reflects a more modern, egalitarian, Brethren, “every member minister,” type
approach.

The caution here is that when one gets such a reprint he should
always check the front matter to determine whether he is reading the original
in an unabridged form or in an abridged and modernized form.I am not against abridgements.I have, after all, done one myself.Still, it is usually a good idea to compare
the original with the abridgement to track theological influences in the interpretation.

Friday, July 13, 2012

“For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto
the Father” (Ephesians 2:18)

When I was editing John Owen’s Gospel Church Government last year, one
of the passages that really struck me concerned prayer as part of the
fellowship that churches and individual Christians enjoy.Owen makes the following point:

They have a
blessed fellowship in prayer continually.This fellowship is more evident in that the prayers of all are for
all.There is not a single particular
church or a single member of any of them that does not have the prayer support
of all the churches in the world and all the members of them every day.Though this fellowship is invisible to the
eyes of flesh, it is glorious to the eye of faith.It is a part of the glory of Christ the
mediator in heaven.This fellowship in
prayer gives to all churches a communion far more glorious than any outward
rite or plan of men’s devising (p. 101).

Upon reading
this passage, I particularly remember being deeply humbled and encouraged as I
considered the fact that though the prayers of the saints and the intercession
of Christ, I had “the prayer support of all the churches in the world and all
the members of them every day.”The Lord
knows our needs.An army of his saints
are constantly praying for the concerns of his people and for the expansion of
his kingdom.We have prayer
support.

Kähler writes to
oppose 19th century attempts to reconstruct the life of Jesus based
on the Gospels.He begins, “I regard the
entire Life-of-Jesus movement as a blind alley” (p. 46).The title of the book distinguishes between
the “historical” (historische) Jesus and the “historic” (geschichtliche) biblical
Christ.Braaten discusses and compares
translation of these important terms on p. 21:

historische
(historie)geschichtliche
(geschichte)

C. Braaten/R. Fuller“historical”“historic”

J. Macquarrie“objective
history”“existential
history”

H. R. Niebuhr“outer
history”“inner
history”

For
Kähler, the Gospels do not provide an adequate
“historical” picture of Jesus, but they do provide an adequate “historic”
picture.He contends that “we have no sources
for a biography of Jesus of Nazareth which measures up to the standards of
contemporary historical science” (p. 48).He rejects, in particular, attempts to present psychological studies of
Jesus’ inner life or of development in his thought from the Gospels, stating,
“The New Testament presentations were not written for the purpose of describing
how Jesus developed” (p. 51). Indeed, he notes, “The inner development of a
sinless person is as inconceivable to us as life in the Sandwich Islands is to
a Laplander” (p. 53)!Thus, he
concludes, “Without a doubt the Gospels are the complete opposite of the
embellishing, rationalizing, and psychologizing rhetoric of the recent
biographies of Jesus” (p. 93). Along these
lines, Kähler also adds his famous aphorism that one could well
call the Gospels “passion narratives with extended introductions” (p. 80, no. 11).

Kähler wants to
walk the line between both traditional (pre-critical) and modern (historical-critical)
understandings of the Scripture.He
calls the choice between the two “an Either/Or.”This means, “Either we retreat to the
standpoint of the seventeenth century … affirming the inerrancy of the external
features of the Bible as it was taken over at the Reformation, and rejecting
any kind of historical study of the sacred text.Or we deny that there is any essential
difference between the biblical writings and other books….” (p. 110).Both approaches, he claims, are
misguided.The purpose of the Gospels is
not to provide “for a scientifically
reconstructed biography of Jesus” but their purpose “is to awaken faith in
Jesus through a clear proclamation of his saving activity” (p. 127).

In
his critique of modern theology, Kähler offers this
observation:“The assertion of the
absolutely unlimited inerrancy of everything found in our vernacular Bibles has
caused a progressive uneasiness ever since the investigation of the traditions
of Judaism hit its full stride” (p. 115).In a footnote for the word “everything” in the previously quoted
sentence, Kähler notes how this “uneasiness” in “everything”
has included the undermining of the traditional text found in Luther’s Bible
which he notes has met more opposition in Germany than in England (!):

This word has been chosen advisedly.The situation is such that a devoted reader
of the Bible has usually felt himself entitled to rely literally upon all the
statements made in the headings and subheadings in Luther’s translation of the
Bible.How reluctantly a person resigns
himself to the elimination of the pericope of the adulteress and of the end of
Mark’s Gospel.How enraged people become
when doubt is cast upon the Mosaic authorship of Genesis, etc.This attitude has been partly to blame for
the difficulties encountered in connection with the revising of Luther’s
translation.In England, devotedness to
the letter of Scripture produces zeal for a continual improvement of the
translation; among us Germans it has produced a certain resentment of any such
attempts; and in still others it has inspired the naïve confidence of being
able to give Bible readers a more faithful reproduction of the original text,
even though the translator may have a most inadequate knowledge of the biblical
languages and often not the vaguest notion of the textual problems.These mutually exclusive examples show that
the starting point, the same in each instance, cannot be the correct one (p.
115, n. 26).

In
the end, one might question whether Kähler’s supposed
effort to stand above and beyond the fray between traditionalists and modernists
is sincere.In truth, Kähler stands steadfastly with modern theology.Efforts like his, and that of others in
liberal Protestantism, to forfeit the historical reliability of the Gospels
while affirming their unique spiritual content did not salvage a high view of
the Scriptures or a vibrant Christian faith.Would that Kähler had, instead, stood with the
seventeenth century Reformers in affirming both
the “historic” and “historical” Jesus of the Gospels and the “historic” and “historical” Christ of faith, with no
contradiction between the two.His
critique of the “Life-of-Jesus” movement, however, is usefully on target and
anticipated the devastating critique of this movement in Albert Schweitzer’s The Quest of the Historical Jesus.Though his remedy is inadequate, Kähler also rightly anticipated the way in which the
application of the historical-critical method was undermining Christian faith
in Germany and beyond.